Ombudsman Services: Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform (7) More Data Manipulation (710)

710. Ombudsman Services - Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform. (7) More Data Manipulation.

Without Martin Lewis' Report - Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform,  the consumer would never have known that over 80% of property complainants who had taken their complaint to Ombudsman Services:Property expecting a, "fair" and "independent" investigation of their case when responding to Martin Lewis' survey, felt they had been treated, "unfairly."

Potential property complainants uncertain as to whether to take their complaint to this private redress scheme would only have had BMG's research to go by.

Their findings for 2016 were,

"comments showed largely positive findings, with strong levels of satisfaction with enquiry handling and high levels of advocacy of Ombudsman Services. Results were consistent by sector."

Property is a sector of Ombudsman Services so could potential complainants infer from the above that that they could trust the Property Ombudsman to investigate their complaint, "fairly" and "independently."

It isn't clear.

The EU Directive is.

At (39) The Directive states,

"ADR entities should be accessible and transparent. In order to ensure the transparency of ADR entities and of ADR procedures it is necessary that the parties receive clear and accessible information they need to take an informed decision before engaging in an ADR procedure."

(www.eur-lex.europa.en/legal-content)

We would like someone to ask The Rev Shand Smith:

      Q. Why isn't the information provided to the consumer by Ombudsman Services clear        and  accessible and why doesn't it meet the EU criterion?
      Q. Why don't Ombudsman Services say just exactly strong are "the strong levels of         satisfaction" and how high are "the high levels of advocacy?"

DJS Research once did exactly that. We believe they lost their contract for being good at their job.

Q. Why doesn't BMG Research put a figure on the levels of satisfaction and advocacy and what is it the company is seeking - so successfully - to hide?

Q. In 2010-11 DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Report was highly critical of the Property Ombudsman's performance in resolving disputes. Why aren't today's complainants told that there was an 80% dissatisfaction with the Property Ombudsman's perceived fairness?

Although this information was available to Martin Lewis his Report didn't mention it. 

What wouldn't have been available to him were the full DJS Customer Satisfaction Reports which have deliberately been removed from the company's website - and thus from accountability and history.

If the consumer wanted to check out this organisation's performance in resolving costly property disputes they have to dig deeper each year. Their hard work would be poorly rewarded. The consumer will discover that Energy data has its own section as does Communications but Property is tucked away under Annual Reports. The 2008-09 Annual Report has now disappeared and we suspect the 2009-10 one will go the same way.

DJS Research's highly critical Customer Satisfaction Reports will have been erased from history. Because Ombudsman Services Ltd is a private company it is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act. In the highly manicured landscape of private ADR, accountability and transparency are a thing of the past.

A private company that is so calculating and deliberate in its sanitising of data clearly has much to hide that it does so with the full knowledge of Government Ministers and senior civil servants, is scandalous.

Such decisions are made by individuals who appear to enjoy power but not accountability.

Take Professor Dame Janet Finch the previous Chair of Ombudsman Services as an example. The person who oversaw the replacement of DJS Research by BMG and thus the end of those highly revealing Customer Satisfaction Reports.

On the one hand, Professor Dame Janet Finch said in one Annual Report,

"We aim to provide a first class service of dispute resolution for our members and their customers. In achieving our aims we shall be: accessible, consistent, honest and effective." 

On the other, Paul Jump writing in the Times Higher Education said,

"Rejected candidate says appointment process was shambles from start to finish.

Professor Wheeler:

This is hardly a 21st century standard of accountability or a great start for a process that depends upon trust or confidence. Did Janet Finch run Keele like this? If she did, I have no doubt that it was an interesting experience."

(The TES 3 Feb 2011)

Like Martin Lewis we fact-checked DJS Research's shocking revelations with its Managing Director. We asked him if we could use his company's name because what his research had revealed was truly shocking. Fortunately, we could.

a) The Property Ombudsman did arrive at decisions in an illogical manner.

b) The majority (by then 64%) of complainants were, "very dissatisfied" with the outcome of their expensive property complaint.

"Very dissatisfied" is being polite. It seemed Janet Finch also ran Ombudsman Services, "like this."

What we have discovered is that Ombudsmen do not expect to have their illogical decisions challenged and do not take it kindly when their illogical decisions are challenged. This refusal on the part of ombudsmen to be held accountable is what motivates us to continue campaigning for a public inquiry into what passes for, "civil-justice."

In 2009-10 the DJS Research Customer Satisfaction Report at (8.24) stated:

"to be effective the Surveyors Ombudsman Services (now known as Ombudsman Services:Property and yes it really is a service for surveyors) must be seen as an impartial arbitrator between parties - currently this does not seen to be the general consensus of opinion."

(that has since been removed from the company's website and so  has been air-brushed from history)

Martin Lewis would have had access to this;

"Many were complaining about poor information/advice which could possibly have led to a costly purchasing mistake far in excess of a few hundred pounds..

The service is different from Otelo or Energy in that the financial implications relate to expensive purchasing decisions. Whilst we have seen some improvements in areas this year there does appear to be a key issue with regards to complainants perceptions of what recompense (ie scale of financial goodwill) they can expect from the complaint and what can actually be delivered. This should be looked at."

At that time property complainants were complaining that "recompense" stood at - £1,511.75p

Gillian Fleming, the Property Ombudsman did look at the scale of financial goodwill and the next year she reduced it to £900 after an un-named individual(s) had complained about the recent rise in the levels of financial award. (Minutes 15th December 2009).

Martin Lewis didn't mention this in his Report.

He did reveal that in 2017, 80% of property complainants believe the Ombudsman's decisions are not, "fair." They can now expect £50 from the Property Ombudsman.

We believe Martin Lewis' Report - Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform is the tip of a very large iceberg and that when consumers embark on their customer journey with Ombudsman Services:Property they will have done so having been miss-sold the promise of Alternative Dispute Resolution and private, Civil-Justice.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - %10458.

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogger.com and www.facebook.com Ombudsmans Sixtyone-percent.